DEFAMATION

Jaaved Jaaferi to file defamation case against social media user over alleged
fake tweet

As much as social media has brought people closer, it equally plays an important part in
spreading fake news and rumours like fire. Recently, Bollywood actor Jaaved Jaaferi took to
his Twitter handle and shared a video to call out a social media user and accused him of
spreading fake post and rumours about the actor. In the video, the actor said that it is sad
how quickly these things spread, also clarifying that he hasn't made any objectionable
comments that can hurt anybody's sentiments. The actor also added that he will take action
against the user and file a defamation case against him.

Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, defamation is committed:

“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,

makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the
cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”

Under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, defamation shall be punished with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or both.
COPYWRITE ACT

Tips Industries v Wynk Music[1]

Issue: Whether there exists a statutory licensing scheme under the Copyright Act to
online streaming services?

Background: The dispute centers around section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 which
provides for statutory licensing scheme, as whereby any ‘broadcasting organization’
desirous of ‘communicating to the public’ any sound recording, can obtain a statutory
license to do so, provided they pay royalty rates to the copyright owners at rates fixed
by the Intellectual Property Law Board.

Facts: Tips Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) is an Indian music label that exercises copyright
over a significant music repository that, in 2016, granted Wynk Music Ltd (Defendant)
license to access this music repository. At the expiry of the said license both the parties
attempted to renegotiate the licensing conditions but failed to do so and hence Wynk
took refuge by invoking Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Tips challenged Wynk’s
invocation of Section 31D, and prosecuted Wynk pursuant to Section 14(1)(e) for
breach of their exclusive rights of sound recording

Judgement: After hearing the contentions of both the parties the Bombay High Court
came to a conclusion finding Wynk to be guilty of direct infringement on two counts – 1.
To offer the copyrighted work under section 14(1) (e) (ii) which allowed the users to
download and listen to the plaintiff’s work offline and 2. Under section 14(1) (e) (iii) for
communicating the plaintiff’s works to the users via their streaming service.

In addition to that the Bombay High Court sought this opportunity to clear out the air
regarding the ambiguity that existed with respect to online streaming services falling
within the scope of Section 31D:

1. Under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, ‘ Download / Purchase ‘ of copyrighted

works is not covered.

Wynk Music permitted the users to download and store copyrighted music for unlimited
future use which instituted to be a ‘sale’ and not ‘communication made to public’ which
constitutes as a ‘broadcast’ for the purposes of Section 31D and hence there exists no
claim for statutory license for the use of such copyrighted work by Wynk Music.

2. The application of Section 31D of the Copyright Act does not include Internet
broadcasting.
The case of the defendant was based primarily on the presumption that Section 31D
covered Internet streaming services under’ radio broadcasting’ as described in a 2016
DPIIT office circular, given that’ radio broadcasting’ included’ internet broadcasting’
under Section 31D.

The Court had an opposing view which resulted in the rejection of the interpretation put
forth by the defendant.

The Court found Section 31D to be an exception to copyright which ought to only be
strictly interpreted. Upon careful examination of the statutory scheme of 31D and the
rules accompanying it, it becomes apparent that statutory licensing was intended to only
cover radio and television broadcasting and not internet broadcasting. After examining
the history associated with Section 31D, the court derived that,despite the global
existence of internet streaming services when the Section was inserted through an
Amendment Act of 2012, the legislation even though being aware of it omitted to include
internet streaming services from the ambit of Section 31D. In addition to that, the
memorandum presented by the defendant does not contain any additional weightage of
their claim as a memorandum only acts as ‘guidelines’ and lacks statutory authority and
therefore has no influence to the extent of their claim.

The judgement was passed in the favour of the plaintiff and the court held that the
plaintiff was entitled to interim injunction, having regard to the reality that they had made
a prima facie case, would suffer irreparable harm in the way of lost revenue.

The Copyright Act 1957 governs the subject of copyright law in India. The Act is applicable from 21
January 1958. The history of copyright law in India can be traced back to its colonial era under the
British Empire.